Method and kit for treating illnesses

ABSTRACT

Methods and kits for determining appropriate treatment for illnesses in humans or animals are disclosed. The method includes: 
     providing a test kit containing a random arrangement of drug(s) and placebo(s) and/or alternative treatment(s) along with a questionnaire or other instrument designed to elicit data concerning the safety, efficacy and desirability of a treatment; 
     administering the drug(s) and placebo(s) and/or alternative treatments to each member of the pool in a random, double blind fashion and following up on patient outcomes as appropriate post-study; 
     assembling a database from the completed pool questionnaires and revealing the random schedule to uncover drug and placebo treatment periods; 
     providing the same kit to a patient in need of the same treatment and comparing the results obtained from the single patient trial with those obtained from the pool to determine an optimal treatment for the patient with the drug; and 
     administering a treatment consistent with the optimal treatment.

BACKGROUND OF THE INVENTION

The present invention relates to improving the treatment of chronicillness in humans and animals. In particular, the invention relates tokits and methods that improve chronic treatments using data obtainedfrom individual random crossover (n=1 or single patient) double-blindstudies.

Inappropriate prescribing of potent and potentially dangerous drugs is aproblem of staggering dimensions. Nonetheless, no commercial solutionhas been advanced to ensure appropriate treatment. Presently, doctorsprescribe medications which have approved indications determined bylarge clinical trials. Drug manufacturers also demonstrate a product'ssafety and effectiveness using well controlled clinical studies inpopulations likely to require its use (e.g. hypertensive patients forantihypertensive drugs). Relatively small numbers of highly selectedsubjects are utilized. Too often, these studies do not accuratelypredict the safety and efficacy of a medication for individuals actuallytreated in practice.

Thus, prescribers are at a disadvantage because a highly selected, oftenhomogeneous group of patients is actually studied for marketingapproval. The prescribing physician often cannot distinguish which drugsare safe and effective for his/her heterogeneous collection ofindividual patients. Even in homogeneous groups of patients, individualvariation is usually large when a pharmaceutical company measures adrug's disposition and activity. Therefore, average results may bepoorly suited to the needs of any given individual. It is rarely clearto the prescribing physician how an individual patient might respond toa given medication. This is because all people respond differently, bothpositively and negatively, based upon individual genetic andenvironmental factors.

Furthermore, the physician rarely has objective information to helpdecide between alternative therapies for an individual patient. Althoughthe physician wants unbiased data concerning how a patient responds to agiven therapy, such data is almost never available unless the patient isin a drug trial. The physician is almost always required to usesubjective “clinical judgment”.

Pharmaceutical manufacturers are also at a disadvantage since they haveno means of providing unbiased data for individual patients.Manufacturers rarely receive feedback on how a drug is used in actualpractice unless an adverse event is reported. Other organizations oftenneed unbiased information for regulatory, patient care and businesspurposes. Currently, unreliable retrospective databases, such asgovernment or health maintenance organizations' epidemiologic databases,are used.

In 1985, investigators proposed a single-patient drug trial as apossible solution. Using this study design, a patient is treated with amedication and a placebo in a double-blind randomized manner (n=1 orsingle patient drug trial). This approach permits assessment of whethera medication regimen is appropriate for an individual patient in termsof medical benefit and harm. This approach eliminates patient/physicianbias by making the medication and placebo look and/or taste the same.Thus, a toxic or ineffective treatment can be avoided by using objectivecriteria and new treatment regimens can be pursued for well documentedreasons and similarly tested, if needed. This alternative is purelysubjective trial and error.

The single-patient method, however, has significant shortcomings. It hasfailed to provide validated results. There was no appreciation that thedata obtained from the single trial should be compared against adatabase compiled from similarly affected and tested patients. Moreover,no guidance was provided concerning therapeutic alternatives based upona database comprised of earlier patient experience during single-patienttrials.

No commercial products are believed to be available which allowobjective and definitive measurement of individual patient compatibilitywith drug treatment compared to placebo or a therapeutic alternative.The present invention addresses this need.

OBJECTS AND SUMMARY OF THE INVENTION

It is therefore an object of the present invention to develop methodsand kits which can assess the appropriateness of specific drug treatmentin individuals, particularly those suffering from chronic illnesses.

It is a further object to provide methods and kits for testingtherapeutic alternatives for drug treatments in individuals.

Thus, in one aspect, the invention includes a method of treating humanand veterinary illnesses. The method includes:

a) providing to a pool of humans or animals in need of such treatment atest kit containing:

i) a supply of a drug indicated or proposed for the treatment of anillness;

ii) a supply of a placebo substantially identical in appearance to thedrug,

iii) a questionnaire designed to elicit from each pool member to betreated information concerning the actual usage, safety, efficacy anddesirability of the selected treatment;

b) administering the drug and placebo to each member of the poolaccording to a random, double-blind schedule;

c) assembling a database from the pool based on the answers providedfrom the individual questionnaire;

d) revealing the random schedule and comparing the data obtained fromknown drug and placebo treatment periods;

e) providing a test kit containing the same materials as set forth in a)to a human or animal also in need of such treatment to obtain a separateor second set of data concerning the safety, efficacy and desirabilityof said treatment;

f) administering the drug and placebo to the human or animal accordingto a random, double-blind schedule;

g) assembling the second or separate database based on the answersprovided to the questionnaire;

h) revealing the random schedule to uncover drug and placebo treatmentperiods;

i) comparing the data obtained from the pool with that obtained from thesingle human trial to determine an optimal treatment of the human oranimal with the drug; and

j) administering to the human or animal a treatment consistent with theoptimal treatment. The new dosing regimen for optimal therapeutic effectand quality of life can also be retested, if and when deemedappropriate, by the clinician and/or patient.

The method is suitable for evaluating and validating any prescription ornon-prescription treatment regimen or medication for individuals as wellas demographic groups. Using this method, one can periodically obtainfurther outcome information on tested individuals.

Other aspects of the invention include a method and kit for determiningtherapeutic alternatives and verifying generic equivalence of knownmedications. These methods include:

a) providing to a human or animal a test kit containing:

i) a supply of a drug indicated for the treatment of an illness;

ii) a supply of a therapeutic alternative or generic equivalentcandidate substantially identical in appearance to the drug,

iii) a questionnaire designed to elicit from the human or animalinformation concerning the safety, efficacy and desirability of thetreatment for the human or animal;

b) administering the drug and therapeutic alternative to the human or ananimal according to a random, double-blind schedule;

c) assembling a database by eliciting from the human or animal caretakeranswers to the questionnaire; and

d) revealing the random arrangement schedule to determine the relativeeffectiveness of the therapeutic alternatives in the human or animal bycomparing the data obtained from knowing drug and alternative treatmentperiods.

There are several advantages associated with the present invention. Forexample, patients benefit by the assurance of treatment with appropriatedrug and dosing regimen. The method is particularly useful beforecommitting a patient to a long term drug treatment regimen. Documentedevidence of the benefit is provided. Unnecessary side effects andexpense can be avoided.

Government agencies could also benefit by the availability of a dynamicdatabase on drug efficacy and safety in individuals. The inventivemethod also provides an alternative means for approving new drugs. Inthis aspect, the new drug or therapeutic alternative could be testedaccording to the methods described herein against a placebo or a knowneffective agent and/or indicated therapy in individuals and/or a pool ofsuitable candidates. This is a particular advantage to thepharmaceutical industry and affords a method to validate the therapeuticequivalence of generic drugs as well as non-generic therapeuticalternatives.

Insurers and managed care organizations could benefit by having areliable “second opinion” to help avoid expensive, prolonged, unneeded,or toxic treatments, and promote utilization of safe and effectivetherapies.

The present invention provides advances over prior art single patientdrug trials (n=1) by optimizing treatment for the individual. Unlike(n=1) studies, which by definition, had a sample size of one, theinvention includes comparing the data obtained from the individual witha database accumulated for an entire tested population, referred to as apool herein. This results in the opportunity to create a prospective,frequently updated epidemiological database which has value not only forregulatory approvals or post-marketing surveillance of drug safety andefficacy, but also for optimizing outcome in individuals as well.

DETAILED DESCRIPTION OF THE INVENTION

The present invention includes a method and kit for determining theappropriate treatment of an illness. The method includes:

a) providing to a pool of humans or animals in need of such treatment atest kit containing:

i) a supply of a drug indicated for the treatment of an illness;

ii) a supply of a placebo substantially identical in appearance to theindicated drug,

iii) a questionnaire designed to elicit from each member of the poolinformation concerning the safety, efficacy and desirability of theselected treatment;

b) administering the drug and placebo to each member of the poolaccording to a random, double-blind schedule;

c) assembling a database by eliciting from the pool data from theanswers to the questionnaire;

d) revealing the random schedule to uncover drug and placebo treatmentperiods;

e) providing a test kit containing the same materials as set forth in a)to a human or animal also in need of such treatment to obtain a secondor separate set of data concerning the safety, efficacy and desirabilityof the treatment;

f) administering the drug and placebo to the human or animal accordingto a random, double-blind schedule;

g) assembling a separate database by eliciting from the human or animalcaretaker answers to the questionnaire;

h) revealing the random schedule and comparing the data obtained as aresult of known active(s) and placebo(s) treatment periods;

i) comparing the results obtained from the first set of data obtainedfrom the pool with the second set of data obtained from the single trialto determine an optimal treatment of the human or animal with the drug;and

j) administering to the human or animal a treatment consistent with theoptimal treatment, based upon individual and group outcome. Results fromthe individual, and post-study follow-up data can also be added to thegeneral database.

Even after the data obtained from the questionnaires is obtained, thecaregiver can continue to periodically use the same kit or other kitswith different test articles, analyzing the further results for relativescoring, or monitoring further treatment based on physician and patientawareness of study results.

For purposes of description of the present invention, certain terms aredescribed below. Generally, however, the terms have the commonlyunderstood meaning known to those of ordinary skill in the art.

Drug shall mean a medicament, biologically active ingredient, orpharmaceutical dosage form containing an active ingredient effective forone or more medical conditions. The drug may be in any known dosage formincluding tablets, capsules, solutions, elixirs, ointments, creams, etc.

Placebo shall mean an inert or inactive dosage form having an appearanceand/or other organoleptic/sensory characteristics substantiallyidentical to an active drug.

Treatment or treating includes administering a generally recognizedeffective amount of a drug for the purpose of alleviating or curing adisease or deficiency.

Optimal or optimizing treatment means a treatment regimen which has beenadjusted or validated in view of a comparison of objective data relatingto one or more treatment periods with one or more active medicament(s)and one or more of placebo, therapeutic alternative or genericequivalent. This is further adjusted by consideration of outcomes fromsimilarly tested populations. Treatments consistent with optimaltreatment are those which adjust the time, manner or amount of a drug ortherapy for maximum effect, or even cease to treat with the drug ortherapy.

Supply means a quantity sufficient for completing a statistically validevaluation of a treatment method in an individual.

Therapeutic alternative means a medicament having a non-identicalchemical composition from a known medicament but achieves substantiallythe same bio-effect in an individual.

A generic drug or medicament means a substantially identical activeingredient to a known composition.

Chronic shall mean treatment for a condition which lasts an indefiniteperiod of time. Treatments amounting to more than a single course oftherapy. Maintenance dosing regimens are also contemplated.

Prolonged therapy shall mean therapy wherein doses are administered to apatient over a period of greater than 10 days, including multipleepisodes or recurrences of shorter duration. For example, a psoriasis orherpes episode may require treatments of less than 10 days but thecondition requires prolonged therapy.

The term “double-blind” shall be consistent with its known meaning andinclude known techniques such as single or multiple crossover techniqueswell known to those of ordinary skill. Double-blind means that thepatient, or caretaker if appropriate, and care-giver do not know exactlywhen the drug, alternative or placebo is given.

For purposes of description, the method and kit can be described as aSingle-Patient Assessment System (SPAS). The SPAS provides a health carepractitioner with objective data based on each individual patient'sunique circumstances, allowing therapy to be tailored to individualneeds. In addition, the unique method generates prospective, directlymeasured epidemiologic safety and efficacy data. Pharmaceuticalcompanies can use this data to gain regulatory approval for newindications or to differentiate efficacy and/or safety benefits betweencompeting products, and to provide pharmaceutical manufacturers,government and health care organizations with demographic and usage dataon products. Importantly, the database can also be used by governmentagencies to monitor the safety and efficacy of drugs in the marketplace.Using statistical sub-group analyses, data can be generated to definethe level of efficacy or safety in various special populations. Forexample, data can be segregated by age, disease severity, onset ofillness, and concurrent medications.

One preferred embodiment of the invention includes the use of the SPASto demonstrate the effectiveness of the specific treatment for thespecific individual, that is, to document the probability that themedication is beneficial without causing unacceptable side effects.Specifically, the system consists of a clinical evaluation kit whichgenerates definitive guidance regarding the safety and efficacy of drugtherapy in each individual patient. The kit contains a full supply ofmedication to be evaluated and/or placebo, as well as all instructionsand evaluation instruments for professionals and patients.

A key feature of the present invention is the double-blind manner inwhich the drug or placebo, or alternative, is being administered. Boththe patient and the physician are unaware of what any dose given is.This is essential since placebo and active drug are randomlyadministered and look identical to eliminate any bias in the results. Aneutral observer/administrator keeps the record of the randomarrangement, assembles the data from completed questionnaires and aftercompletion of the test, “breaks the code” to reveal the schedule of drugand/or placebo doses and analyze the accumulated data. The physicianand/or patient is/are then given a report on the efficacy and safety ofthe drug in question. The report has the feature of being validatedbecause the data obtained from the single patient is compared to dataobtained from a pool of individuals who also required treatment, weregiven the kit, and were followed up when appropriate for efficacy andsafety data post-testing. This can be used for guidance in directingfurther therapy, referred to herein as a treatment consistent withoptimal treatment. The results of individual assessments can bemonitored, with subsequent outcomes added to the database. Datagenerated from a pool of individual studies can then form the basis of alarge population database reporting system which serves to furthervalidate the effectiveness of any singular trial or single indicationfor a medication.

The SPAS includes means for providing the drug(s), placebo(s) andquestionnaire(s) such as a kit. The kit may contain convenientpocket-sized cards which contain a sufficient supply of active drug(s)and placebo(s) or therapeutic alternative(s) in blister packages labeledwith the day and time of dosing. For example, a kit may contain eightcards for a required trial, each corresponding to one of eight weeks oftreatment, and contain daily regimens of either active drug or placebo,at carefully selected times during the eight week period. The tablets inthe card are “blinded” so that neither the patient nor the physician isaware of which preparation is received at any given time. In anemergency, the random arrangement can be broken. Under normalcircumstances, the code will not be made available, thereby eliminatingany bias in the results.

At various times during the evaluation, the program prompts theclinician, patient and/or guardian/observer to fill out questionnairesor other instruments which assess numerous efficacy and safety variablesrelating to improvements in physical and behavioral symptoms.

At the end of the study, all drug cards (used and unused) as well asquestionnaires are returned and the results are evaluated. These resultsare provided to the physician and patient so that guidance can beprovided regarding the safety and efficacy of the treatment for thetested patient. These data can also be added to a master database alongwith other data on family history, demographics, socioeconomic factors,and post-study outcome.

Numerous drugs and indications can be evaluated using the methods of thepresent invention. Suitable illness for which the present invention canbe used include, without limitation, asthma, cancer, epilepsy,schizophrenia, minimal brain dysfunction, mania, depression, anxiety,hypertension, angina, congestive heart failure, cardiac arrhythmias,pain, etc.

Suitable drugs for evaluation include, without limitation, those agentscurrently approved for the above-identified conditions as well as agentsawaiting approval and new chemical entities. For example, the drug canbe selected from anti-asthmatic agents, dental agents; anti-epilepticagents, anti-psychotic agents, anti-depressants, cardiovascular agents,respiratory agents, antihypertensive agents, diabetic agents, steroidaland non-steroidal anti-inflammatory agents, opiates, narcotic andnon-narcotic analgesics, hematologic agents, musculoskeletal agents,anti-anxiety agents, gastro-intestinal agents, dermatologic agents, andanti-allergy medications. Other categories not specifically mentionedare intended as well. Particular agents well suited for the methods ofthe present invention include methylphenidate, estrogen-containingagents, anti-asthmatic agents, cardioactive agents, and antidepressantagents.

Oral, mucous membrane, nasal, surgical, musculoskeletal, central nervoussystem, urinary tract, psychiatry, nephrology, neurology, genital,podiatry, chiropractic, pediatric, geriatric, acupuncture, allopathy,homeopathy and osteopathy treatments can be also be evaluated.

It is to be understood that where veterinary treatments and therapiesare to be tested,the questionnaires and assembly of data are provided byhuman caretaker/observers. Furthermore, it is to be understood that theterm questionnaire refers generally to a means by which information canbe related back to the evaluator. The results need not be transmitted inwritten form. Computer-assisted data recording and communication devicesand measuring instruments can also be part of the database assemblystep.

An additional list of uses includes:

1) Socially/medically controversial uses for drugs where therelationship of risk to benefit is not well defined. For example,depression, asthma, and hyperkinetic behavior are representative chronicailments which can be evaluated and available treatments can bechallenged.

2) Chronic disease states which may or may not benefit from long termdrug treatment. Controlled drug “holidays” are needed to test if chronicmedication is paradoxically compromising quality-of-life, has no effector is helping and should be continued. Category examples includecardiovascular disease, hypertension, and arthritis.

3) “Compassionate” Investigational New Drug Application (IND) drugtrials for drugs/indications which command a fast track regulatoryapproval process, such as drugs used for treatment of AIDS.Pharmaceutical companies can pursue early “compassionate” marketing inthe form of a drug trial in subjects who urgently need the new therapy.Also, early New Drug Application (NDA) approval can be pursued bycarefully controlling drug use, investigational documentation and dataanalysis in the community-practice setting. These regulatory strategiescan be economically and effectively accomplished using Single-PatientAssessment Systems (SPAS).

4) Clinical comparison between innovator and generic drugs.Single-Patient Assessment Systems (SPAS) can be used to validate orinvalidate use of generic drugs for regulatory or marketing purposes.Single-Patient Assessment Systems (SPAS) can be used to gain approvalfor generic drugs which are not readily approved by traditionalbioequivalence testing. The method and kit can offer a consumerassurance of a successful switch from the innovator's product, andassurance that the drug actually improves his or her quality-of-life.

Another example of the method and kit is for evaluation of new orgeneric drugs, or evaluating new indications for marketed drugs ortherapeutic equivalents. This includes determining a therapeuticalternative for a known drug for an individual requiring treatment. Thisaspect includes:

a) providing a human or animal a test kit containing:

i) a supply of a drug indicated for the treatment of an illness;

ii) a supply of a therapeutic alternative substantially identical inappearance to said drug,

iii) a questionnaire designed to elicit from the person or animalcaretaker information concerning the safety, efficacy and desirabilityof the treatment;

b) administering the drug and therapeutic alternative to the person oranimal according to a random, double-blind schedule;

c) assembling a database from the answers to the questionnaire; and

d) revealing the random arrangement schedule to determine theeffectiveness of the therapeutic alternative by comparing the resultsobtained from known drug and alternative treatment periods.

This method may also include additional steps which serve to validatethe data obtained in any single trial. The steps are:

e) providing the same type of test kit to a pool of humans or animals inneed of such treatment and obtaining from the pool a second set of dataincluding post-study following information where appropriate, concerningthe safety, efficacy and desirability of the treatment with the drug andtherapeutic alternative; and

f) comparing the data obtained from an individual with that obtainedfrom the pool to verify the effectiveness of the therapeuticalternative.

The method described herein also contemplates that the therapeuticalternative is a generic equivalent for the drug and/or the same drugbut at a different dosage or even same dosage.

The present invention has a myriad of uses. For example, it can be usedto test, confirm or verify a particular therapy's safety and efficacy.It can also provide demographic, marketing, sales or professional usageinformation. New indications, patterns of use, compliance, therapyrelationships to other disease states, relationships between concomitantmedications, laboratory result relationships can be uncovered. The kitcan be used in regulatory filings, dose titration, placebo controlled,crossover, food effect, dose proportionality, bioavailability, singledose, multiple dose and market research studies. Age effects,socioeconomic effects, sex effects, and disease effects can also bedetermined. Moreover, the role of heredity, diet, geographic location,demographics, occupation, epidemiology, patient education, druginteractions, dose response, time to onset, dosage individualization,regimen individualization, dose finding, dose ranging, rising dose, dosetitration or overdose can be determined.

The kits of the present invention also have value to physicians. Legaldocumentation concerning rational drug therapy, compliance, monitoring,documentation of decision making, appropriateness of therapy, ease offollowing instructions for administration of therapy and documentationof safety and efficacy are all achieved by the inventive process. Themethod gives a reason for patient compliance and drug effects, amechanism for follow-up of therapy, the ability to ease concerns aboutsafety-efficacy. The ability to use blinded placebo treatment methodsand the ability to remove bias from decision making, ease of screeningout psychosomatic illness are all provided. The kit can provide drugholidays in blinded manner to foster compliance, make availableobjective feedback and an unbiased and rational approach to therapy. Thekit allows the involvement of all physicians and/or patients in clinicaltrials, early patient participation in therapy, decreases time forregulatory submissions with less initial use of specialists in clinicaltrials and less dependence on traditional clinical investigators. All ofthese features decrease overall medical costs, the costs of new drugdevelopment, increases accuracy of diagnoses and potentially decreasesmalpractice.

The kit and method has value to patients by lessening the fear ofinappropriate medicine and providing the feeling that somethingimportant is being done. Individualization of therapy for patient,decreased side effects, increased efficacy, decreased risk of treatment,controlled drug holidays are all realized. Patients have the enhancedability to use new and unapproved treatments when needed with theenhanced ability to participate in clinical trials. The kit decreasesoverall costs of treatment, eliminates unnecessary therapies and tests,reminds patients when to use drugs, prevents under or overdoses, fostersrelationships with clinicians, increases understanding of disease anddrug.

Industry will benefit from the invention by having a means to gain earlydrug approval, a marketing tool, a reduction of clinical trial costs,better clinical trials, larger clinical trial database, broader patientpopulation for clinical trials, ability to conduct well controlled,small scale, initial clinical trials, a means for post-marketingsurveillance, as well as a means to document therapeutic bioequivalence.

The kit and method's value to government is realized by providing ameans to remove clinician/company/patient bias in important therapy,protecting the public from inappropriate drug use, decreasing the costof public health, and lowering the cost of effective clinical assessmentof new and existing drugs, more rapidly approving new drugs andindications, providing highly controlled methods to deploy needed butunapproved treatments, and providing new methods for phase I through IVtreatment evaluations.

Third party healthcare organizations, insurers and managed careorganizations benefit by the assurance of need for expensive and/orpotentially dangerous therapies, overall decreased cost of treatment,decreased use of unneeded and/or multiple therapies.

Pharmacists benefit by the availability of new products, enhanced rolein patient care, greater interaction with patients and with other healthcare professionals.

EXAMPLES

The following non-limiting examples serve to provide furtherappreciation of the invention but are not meant to restrict theeffective scope of the invention.

Example 1

In this example, the usefulness of methylphenidate (Ritalin) treatmentin a hyperactive child (Minimum Brain Dysfunction) is evaluated.

Rationale: Use of a stimulant in children is highly controversial andwidely publicized/perceived as a problem. Parents demand a clear-cutreason to use addictive and often poorly tolerated medication.

Technology: Consists of instructions, “calendar” packaging for drug anda substantially identical looking placebo to assure appropriate dosingand monitor compliance, questionnaire assessment forms and instructions.Completed forms are sent to a neutral observer who has assigned therandom, multiple crossover schedule of drug and placebo periods. Onlythe observer has access to when active drug and placebo were taken andanalyzes the data. Results are mailed to the physician and, in thiscase, parent for use in evaluating the usefulness of the therapy. Thephysician and parent are contacted, e.g., every three months to providedata on therapies utilized, and perceived outcome, until the conditionresolves. The data is also added to a post-marketing surveillancedatabase for use in evaluating future individual study results, and foraccess by drug companies, regulatory agencies, and health careorganizations.

The questionnaire portion of the kit includes an initial consent formfor the parent or guardian to complete. The questionnaire also providesbackground information on the study and possible side effects associatedwith the medication. Also included therein is a portion for providingrelevant patient and family histories. More importantly, thequestionnaire, in this case includes a portion for the weekly input byparents or guardian and school observers of answers to questionsrelating to the drug evaluation. Typical questionnaire sheet for theseportions are shown below as Table 1 and Table 2. Physicianquestionnaires are similarly arranged.

TABLE 1 Safety Net Systems, Inc. Hyperactive Child Drug Evaluation KitWEEK 1 PARENT QUESTIONNAIRE Kit Identification Number Date InformationRecorded / / mo day yr Child's name Parent/Guardian Name DEGREE OFACTIVITY Place an X on line where appropriate. NOT VERY OBSERVATION ATALL MUCH Restless or overactive, constantly talking, sudden movements(tics), trouble sleeping Excitable, impulsive Disturbs others, fightsFails to finish things, short attention span, daydreams, won't watch TVfor long Constantly fidgeting, can't sit still Inattentive, easilydistracted Demands must be met immediately, easily frustrated,unnecessarily seeks help Cries often and easily, sad, fearful, threatenssuicide, overly sensitive, easily hurt, anxious to please, afraid of thedark, has nightmares Mood changes quickly and drastically Temperoutbursts, explosive and unpredictable Poor group participation,socially inadequate, isolated, not affectionate, bullies others, lacksfriends, steals, lies, truancy, runs away from home, destructive, cruelto animals, trouble with police Defiant, uncooperative, does notrecognize authority, talks back, refuses to obey, fails to return homeon time Abnormal development-clumsiness, speech problems, sexualproblems, abnormal eating habits To be completed by parent at the end ofeach study week.

TABLE 2 Safety Net Systems, Inc. Hyperactive Child Drug Evaluation KitWEEK 5 SCHOOL QUESTIONNAIRE Kit Identification Number Date InformationRecorded / / mo day yr Child's name School Observer Name DEGREE OFACTIVITY Place an X on line where appropriate. NOT VERY OBSERVATION ATALL MUCH Restless or overactive, leaves seat unexcused, nervous, tenseExcitable, impulsive Disturbs other children, fights, noisy, tapping,humming Fails to finish things, short attention span Constantlyfidgeting Inattentive, easily distracted Demands must be metimmediately, easily frustrated, speaks out of turn Cries often andeasily, sad, sullen, overly sensitive, easily hurt, anxious to pleaseMood changes quickly and drastically Temper outbursts, explosive andunpredictable Poor group participation, socially inadequate, isolatedDefiant, uncooperative, does not recognize authority Abnormaldevelopment-bedwetting, clumsiness, speech problems, sexual problems,abnormal eating habits To be completed by school observer at the end ofeach study week.

As a result of undergoing the study, all interested parties have a clearunderstanding of the value of the medication for this particularpatient.

Example 2

In this example, the kit described in Example 1 is used to againevaluate the usefulness of methylphenidate (Ritalin) treatment in ahyperactive child except that all interested parties have the benefit ofa set of data generated from a pool of patients having a similar needfor treatment. The trial calls for 40 mg daily given at 10 mg four timesdaily compared to identical appearing placebo given four times daily.After completing the trial and questionnaire, the processed dataprovides the following results which are statistically determined:

the patient's attention span is observed to have improved substantiallyduring the periods in the trial when the methylphenidate is being given;

temper outbursts are observed to increase slightly during placeboperiods;

sleep patterns are observed to be statistically altered duringmethylphenidate periods; and

teacher comments corroborate improved attention span duringmethylphenidate dosing periods.

All results obtained from the data are then compared against the resultsprovided by data amassed from a pool of about 200 patients with the samedisorder. Of these 200 patients, 55 experienced encouraging results (asdid the current patient) and were continued on 40 mg daily treatment. Ofthese 55 patients, 5 were lost to follow-up, with 50 remaining forprospective evaluation. Because the physician would now choose tocontinue the patient on 40 mg methylphenidate daily based solely on theisolated SPAS single patient drug trial results, he now takes theopportunity of reviewing the pooled data on the 50 patients. This isdone to understand under what circumstances this individual patientwould likely continue to show benefit from methylphenidate 40 mgtreatment, and what conditions lead to treatment failure.

The pool of 50 patients who continued treatment had the following scoresfollowing the original SPAS testing:

Attention Span 100% had substantial improvement Sleep Patterns  50% werestatistically altered  50% were not statistically altered TeacherComments  80% corroborate improved attention span  20% did notcorroborate improved attention span

All 50 patients were followed up by telephone interview monthly for ninemonths or more, and outcomes were prospectively documented. It was foundthat all patients who had no statistically altered sleep disturbances onthe original SPAS test continued to be well maintained on treatment.However, within two months, all patients who had statistically alteredsleep patterns on SPAS testing showed loss of symptom control, and in90% severe episodes of bizarre behaviors were reported; two of thesepatents experienced a grand mal seizure. All patients who had astatistically altered sleep disturbance had to be discontinued fromtreatment within two months.

Despite the initial, generally positive result of the SPAS singlepatient drug trial, the prescribing physician has a strong, objectivebasis for not continuing treatment with methylphenidate 40 mg dailybecause the pooled data from similar patients clearly indicate thatcontinued treatment in the presence of sleep alteration is at great risk(90% chance of a severe adverse event) with limited potential benefit.The continuing validation process using pooled data, which is a subjectof this invention, provides additional data which is essential toformulating a rational therapeutic decision.

The physician may now decide to use a different pharmacologicintervention in a chemical class which is not as frequently associatedwith sleep disturbance (e.g., amitriptyline), or may decide to usenon-pharmacologic treatments, such a behavioral therapy. Theamitriptyline dose selected may be tested using another SPAs designedfor that drug, and the process continued until the patient is on adocumented safe and effective drug regimen.

Example 3

Test kit:

Antihistamine for house dust induced allergic nasal congestion.

A clinician writes a prescription for a test kit which has beenextensively tested in patients similar to his. The product labelingavailable to the clinician advises him that it has been used in 2,000patients with house dust allergic nasal congestion to date. Theantihistamine was found to be clinically useful with a modest sideeffect profile in 1500 patients, 250 experienced untoward drowsiness and250 experienced no clinical benefit. The test was completed and usefulonly in subjects with an 8th grade educational level or higher whoreport at least moderate symptoms on study initiation. Subjects withmild symptoms often failed to complete the study. The clinicianrecognizes that his patient is college educated with severe symptoms andwrites the prescription, confident that he has a good candidate for thetest.

Example 4

The pharmaceutical company marketing an antihistamine submits a 2,000patient database to the government for approval of a new claim for theproduct: house dust allergic nasal congestion. The company agreed with arequest from the government agency that, as a condition for expeditedreview and acceptance, continuous post-marketing surveillance will beconducted for this indication by marketing the product in a SPAS testkit. This testing of each subject on initiation of therapy willcontinuously ensure that each patient is evaluated for appropriatenessof treatment prior to commitment to a chronic regimen. In addition, itallows the company to provide a monthly update to the government of drugefficacy and safety in the entire population using the product for housedust allergic nasal congestion. Physician and patient labeling can berevised if necessary. Also, it is now found that the product has moreside effects if the patient is also taking cimetidine. Therefore, thecompany can now advise the government agency of a possible druginteraction, and warn clinicians of a possible drug interaction in theproduct labeling.

Example 5

In this example, the validity of using a sustained release formulationof verapamil 240 mg once daily as a therapeutic alternative to sustainedrelease propranolol 180 mg once daily in a hypertensive 45 year old maleis shown. The trial during which the two medications are randomlyadministered in a double-blind manner is six weeks. The questionnaireused is set up in a manner similar to that described in above examplesexcept that the questions elicit information related to the disease ofhypertension. Blood pressure is taken daily by the patient and weekly bythe physician. Lab values and vision tests are also reported weekly bythe physician. At the end of the trial period it is determined that meansystolic blood pressure increases 3% and mean diastolic pressure isessentially stable. Both values are statistically insignificant and thetherapeutic alternative selection is objectively validated.

Example 6

In this example, the data accumulated for example 5 is compared againstthat acquired from a pool of 100 male patients who were switched frombeta blockers, including propranolol, to calcium channel blockers,including verapamil. The results of example 5 are found to be inagreement with those found from the pool. On this basis, a healthmaintenance group can objectively eliminate the use of beta blockers formales fitting the pool profile with hypertension under its care.

Example 7

In this example, each member of a pool of fifty patients is given a testkit containing a four week supply of an antihistamine and a four weeksupply of a look-alike placebo arranged in a multiple-crossover, randomorder along with a questionnaire designed to confirm the appropriatenessof the therapy. After all of the kits have been finished and individualresults provided to the patients and care-givers, the pooled datasupplied from the questionnaire is evaluated. It is found that aquestion (number 12) relating to the secondary side-effect of dry mouthfor the drug was poorly understood by the pool members and failed toprovide a statistically significant result for the database. Moreover,several patients reported heart palpitations and related cardiacdisturbances. Thus, question number 12 is dropped from the questionnaireand replaced with one tested and validated for comprehension at the 5thgrade education level; also a new question relating specifically tocardiac symptoms is added. All further kits for the antihistamine trialsare made to contain the revised, validated questionnaire.

A clinician writes a prescription for a test kit containing the revisedquestionnaire and antihistamine/placebo combination for a patient. Thepatient completes the course of therapy as directed over the eight weekcourse and completes the weekly questionnaire relating to the trial andmails them to a neutral observer who also has the key to the randomarrangement of drug/placebo. At the end of the trial, a statisticalanalysis of the trial is provided to the clinician who evaluates theresults in view of the data provided by the pool of patients. Theclinician thus has an objective basis for continuing the therapy sincethis individual was found to have substantially improved symptoms, andmembers of the tested pool with similar results were found to do wellwith continued treatment at three and six months.

As will be readily appreciated, numerous variations and combinations ofthe features set forth above can be utilized without departing from thepresent invention as set forth in the claims. Such variations are notregarded as a departure from the spirit and scope of the invention, andall such modifications are intended to be included within the scope ofthe following claims.

What is claimed is:
 1. A method of evaluating the therapeutic responseof individual human patients to chronic therapy with a drug, comprising:a) assembling from a plurality of crossover single patient drug trials apatient population database of information concerning the safety,efficacy and desirability of a drug administered according to arandomized, double-blind schedule with a placebo, said drug beingselected from the group consisting of a drug for treating hyperkineticbehavior, an anti-depressant drug, an anti-anxiety drug, ananti-asthmatic drug, an anti-epileptic drug, an anti-psychotic drug, acardiovascular drug, a respiratory drug, an antihypertensive drug, ananti-diabetic drug, a steroidal anti-inflammatory drug, a non-steroidalanti-inflammatory drug, an opioid analgesic, a non-narcotic analgesicdrug, an anti-cancer drug, a hematologic drug, a musculoskeletal drug, agastro-intestinal drug, and anti-allergy drug, an estrogen-containingdrug, a drug for the treatment of urinary tract conditions, a drug forthe treatment of genital conditions, a drug for the treatment ofneurologic conditions, and a drug for the treatment of psychiatricconditions; b) conducting a randomized, double-blind, cross-over, singlepatient drug trial of said drug and said placebo in a new patient who isa candidate for treatment with said drug; c) comparing the informationaccumulated from the patient population database with the informationfrom the single patient drug trial of said new patient to aid in theinterpretation of the results for said new patient; d) optimizingtreatment for said new patient by taking one of the following actions:(i) continuing therapy for said new patient using the same drug anddosage regimen; (ii) changing the dosage regimen of the same drug inorder to optimize the dosage regimen for said new patient; or (iii)ceasing to treat said new patient with said drug if the patient is notachieving a desired benefit from treatment with said drug; and e) addingthe results from the single patient drug trial of said new patient tothe patient population database.
 2. The method of claim 1, furthercomprising assembly of said patient population database by providing toeach patient in said patient population a test kit containing a supplyof said drug; a supply of said placebo; and a questionnaire designed toelicit from said patient population information concerning the actualusage, safety, efficacy and desirability of said drug.
 3. The method ofclaim 2, further comprising assembly of said information from theindividual patient drug trial by providing to said individual patient atest kit containing a supply of said drug; a supply of said placebo; anda questionnaire designed to elicit from said patient informationconcerning the actual usage, safety, efficacy and desirability of saiddrug.
 4. The method of claim 1, wherein the drug is a drug for treatinghyperkinetic behavior.
 5. The method of claim 1, wherein the drug is ananti-asthmatic drug.
 6. The method of claim 1, wherein the drug is ananti-epileptic drug.
 7. The method of claim 1, wherein the drug is acardiovascular drug.
 8. The method of claim 1, wherein the drug is arespiratory drug.
 9. The method of claim 1, wherein the drug is anantihypertensive drug.
 10. The method of claim 1, wherein the drug is asteroidal anti-inflammatory drug and a non-steroidal anti-inflammatorydrug.
 11. The method of claim 1, wherein the drug is selected from thegroup consisting of an opioid analgesic and a non-narcotic analgesicdrug.
 12. The method of claim 1, wherein the drug is a hematologic drug.13. The method of claim 1, wherein the drug is a musculoskeletal drug.14. The method of claim 1, wherein the drug is a gastro-intestinal drug.15. The method of claim 1, wherein the drug is an anti-allergy drug. 16.The method of claim 1, wherein the drug is an anti-depressant drug. 17.The method of claim 1, wherein the drug is an anti-anxiety drug.
 18. Themethod of claim 1, wherein the drug is an anti-psychotic drug.
 19. Themethod of claim 4, wherein the drug is methylphenidate.
 20. The methodof claim 15, wherein the drug is an antihistamine.
 21. The method ofclaim 7, wherein the drug is verapamil.
 22. The method of claim 21,wherein step (d) comprises the step of decreasing the dose of the drug.23. The method of claim 21, wherein step (d) comprises the step ofceasing to treat the patient.
 24. A method of evaluating the therapeuticresponse of individual human patients to chronic therapy with a drug,comprising: a) assembling from a plurality of crossover single patientdrug trials a patient population database of information concerning thesafety, efficacy and desirability of a drug administered according to arandomized, double-blind schedule with a second agent selected from thegroup consisting of a placebo, a therapeutic alternative for said drug,and a generic equivalent for said drug; said drug being selected fromthe group consisting of a drug for treating hyperkinetic behavior, ananti-depressant drug, an anti-anxiety drug, an anti-asthmatic drug, ananti-epileptic drug, an anti-psycotic drug, a cardiovascular drug, arespiratory drug, an antihypertensive drug, an anti-diabetic drug, asteroidal anti-inflammatory drug, a non-steroidal anti-inflammatorydrug, an opioid analgesic, a non-narcotic analgesic drug, an anti-cancerdrug, a hematologic drug, a musculoskeletal drug, a gastro-intestinaldrug, a anti-allergy drug, an estrogen-containing drug, a drug for thetreatment of urinary tract conditions, a drug for the treatment ofgenital conditions, a drug for the treatment of neurological conditions,and a drug for the treatment of psychiatric conditions; by providing toeach patient in said patient population a test kit containing a supplyof said drug; a supply of said second agent; and a questionnairedesigned to elicit from said patient population information concerningthe actual usage, safety, efficacy and desirability of said drug; b)conducting in a new patient who is a candidate for treatment with saiddrug a randomized, double-blind, cross-over, single patient drug trialof said drug and the same second agent administered to the patientpopulation of step (a), by providing to said new patient a test kitcontaining a supply of said drug; a supply of said second agent; and aquestionnaire designed to elicit from said new patient informationconcerning the actual usage, safety, efficacy and desirability of saiddrug; c) comparing the information accumulated from the patientpopulation database with the information from the single patient drugtrial of said new patient to aid in the interpretation of the resultsfor said new patient; d) optimizing treatment for said new patient bytaking one of the following actions: (i) continuing therapy for said newpatient using the same drug and dosage regimen; (ii) changing the dosageregimen of the same drug in order to optimize the dosage regimen forsaid new patient; (iii) ceasing to treat said new patient with said drugif said new patient is not achieving a desired benefit from treatment,or (iv) changing said new patient to chronic therapy using a therapeuticalternative or generic equivalent of said drug; and e) adding theresults from said single patient drug trial of said new patient to thepatient population database.
 25. The method of claim 21, wherein step(d) comprises the step of changing the patient, the chronic therapyusing a generic equivalent.
 26. The method of claim 24, wherein step (d)comprises the step of ceasing to treat the patient and thereby reducingdrug cost.
 27. The method of claim 24, wherein step (d) comprises thestep of changing the individual patient to chronic therapy using atherapeutic alternative and thereby reducing drug cost.
 28. The methodof claim 24, wherein step (d) comprises the step of changing theindividual patient to chronic therapy using a generic equivalent andthereby reducing drug cost.
 29. The method of claim 21, wherein the drugis a drug for treating hyperkinetic behavior.
 30. The method of claim21, wherein the drug is an anti-asthmatic drug.
 31. The method of claim21, wherein the drug is an anti-epileptic drug.
 32. The method of claim21, wherein the drug is a cardiovascular drug.
 33. The method of claim21, wherein the drug is a respiratory drug.
 34. The method of claim 21,wherein the drug is an antihypertensive drug.
 35. The method of claim21, wherein the drug is a steroidal anti-inflammatory drug and anon-steroidal anti-inflammatory drug.
 36. The method of claim 21,wherein the drug is selected from the group consisting of an opioidanalgesic and a non-narcotic analgesic drug.
 37. The method of claim 21,wherein the drug is a hematologic drug.
 38. The method of claim 21,wherein the drug is a musculoskeletal drug.
 39. The method of claim 21,wherein the drug is an anti-asthmatic drug.
 40. The method of claim 21,wherein the drug is a gastro-intestinal drug.
 41. The method of claim21, wherein the drug is an anti-allergy drug.
 42. The method of claim21, wherein the drug is an anti-depressant drug.
 43. The method of claim21, wherein the drug is an anti-anxiety drug.
 44. The method of claim21, wherein the drug is an anti-psychotic drug.
 45. The method of claim26, wherein the drug is methylphenidate.
 46. A method of evaluating thetherapeutic response of individual human patients to chronic therapywith a drug, comprising: a) assembling from a plurality of crossoversingle patient drug trials a patient population database of informationconcerning the safety, efficacy and desirability of a drug administeredaccording to a randomized, double-blind schedule with a placebo, saiddrug being selected from the group consisting of a drug for treatinghyperkinetic behavior, an anti-depressant drug, an anti-anxiety drug, ananti-asthmatic drug, an anti-epileptic drug, an anti-psychotic drug, acardiovascular drug, a respiratory drug, an antihypertensive drug, ananti-diabetic drug, a steroidal anti-inflammatory drug, a non-steroidalanti-inflammatory drug, an opioid analgesic, a non-narcotic analgesicdrug, an anti-cancer drug, a hematologic drug, a musculoskeletal drug, agastro-intestinal drug, and anti-allergy drug, an estrogen-containingdrug, a drug for the treatment of urinary tract conditions, a drug forthe treatment of genital conditions, a drug for the treatment ofneurologic conditions, and a drug for the treatment of psychiatricconditions; b) conducting a randomized, double-blind, cross-over, singlepatient drug trial of said drug and said placebo in a new patient who isa candidate for treatment with said drug; c) comparing the informationaccumulated from the patient population database with the informationfrom the single patient drug trial of said new patient to aid in theinterpretation of the results for said new patient; d) optimizingtreatment for said new patient by taking one of the following actions:(i) continuing therapy for said new patient using the same drug anddosage regimen; (ii) changing the dosage regimen of the same drug inorder to optimize the dosage regimen for said new patient; or (iii)ceasing to treat said new patient with said drug if the patient is notachieving a desired benefit from treatment with said drug.
 47. A methodof evaluating the therapeutic response of individual human patients tochronic therapy with a drug, comprising: a) assembling from a pluralityof crossover single patient drug trials a patient population database ofinformation concerning the safety, efficacy and desirability of a drugadministered according to a randomized, double-blind schedule with asecond agent selected from the group consisting of a placebo, atherapeutic alternative for said drug, and a generic equivalent for saiddrug; said drug being selected from the group consisting of a drug fortreating hyperkinetic behavior, an anti-depressant drug, an anti-anxietydrug, an anti-asthmatic drug, an anti-epileptic drug, an anti-psychoticdrug, a cardiovascular drug, a respiratory drug, an antihypertensivedrug, an anti-diabetic drug, a steroidal anti-inflammatory drug, anon-steroidal anti-inflammatory drug, an opioid analgesic, anon-narcotic analgesic drug, an anti-cancer drug, a hematologic drug, amusculoskeletal drug, a gastro-intestinal drug, a anti-allergy drug, anestrogen-containing drug, a drug for the treatment of urinary tractconditions, a drug for the treatment of genital conditions, a drug forthe treatment of neurologic conditions, and a drug for the treatment ofpsychiatric conditions; by providing to each patient in said patientpopulation a test kit containing a supply of said drug; a supply of saidsecond agent; and a questionnaire designed to elicit from said patientpopulation information concerning the actual usage, safety, efficacy anddesirability of said drug; b) conducting in a new patient who is acandidate for treatment with said drug a randomized, double-blind,cross-over, single patient drug trial of said drug and the same secondagent administered to the patient population of step (a), by providingto said new patient a test kit containing a supply of said drug; asupply of said second agent; and a questionnaire designed to elicit fromsaid new patient information concerning the actual usage, safety,efficacy and desirability of said drug; c) comparing the informationaccumulated from the patient population database with the informationfrom the single patient drug trial of said new patient to aid in theinterpretation of the results for said new patient; d) optimizingtreatment for said new patient by taking one of the following actions:(i) continuing therapy for said new patient using the same drug anddosage regimen; (ii) changing the dosage regimen of the same drug inorder to optimize the dosage regimen for said new patient; (iii) ceasingto treat said new patient with said drug if said new patient is notachieving a desired benefit from treatment, or (iv) changing said newpatient to chronic therapy using a therapeutic alternative or genericequivalent of said drug.